Shop inspection report not quashed despite alleged procedural defects; objections may be raised later before the assessing authority.

A shop inspection report prepared during premises inspection under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was not quashed at the threshold for alleged procedural irregularity under Rule 34(12). The inspection was conducted by a competent officer, with authorisation, notices for production of accounts, and acknowledgment by the person-in-charge; the record did not conclusively establish non-compliance. The governing principle noted was that materials collected in an irregular or even illegal search are not automatically excluded, and the affected party may challenge their reliability or use before the assessing or penalty authority in later proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the shop inspection report prepared during the inspection of the petitioner's business premises was liable to be quashed at the threshold on the ground of alleged procedural irregularity and non-compliance with Rule 34(12) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963.

Analysis: The inspection was conducted by an officer competent to act under section 28 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, and the records showed authorisation, issuance of notices for production of accounts, and acknowledgment of the proceedings by the person-in-charge. The objection that the inventory was not supported by the signatures of two respectable witnesses did not establish, in writ proceedings, that the inspection itself was illegal, particularly when the materials on record did not conclusively show non-compliance with Rule 34(12). The governing principle applied was that even if materials are gathered in an irregular or illegal search, they are not automatically excluded from consideration in subsequent proceedings, and the party affected may challenge their reliability or use before the appropriate authority when assessment or penalty proceedings are initiated.

Conclusion: The shop inspection report was not quashed at this stage, and the petitioner was left free to raise all objections to its use in appropriate future proceedings.

---